Newbie, which lens for the Canon 400d?

[jack_baps]

Hey guys, hows it going?

One of my first posts here so be gentle

I am going to purchase the Canon 400d and was after some advice. I was initially going to buy the kit but after doing vast ammounts of research I think it would be a waste of money as people tend to use the kit lens for a couple of days to a month and then upgrade.

Therefore I am thining of buying the body only and the following lenses:

Canon 50mm f1.8 (For quality, sharp pictures)

Sigma 17-70mm (To be used for wide angle, a little macro and obviously zoom)

What do you think about that?

Thanks very much, a soon to be skint, Jack.

[senu]

Originally Posted by jack_baps

Hey guys, hows it going?

One of my first posts here so be gentle
........

Gentle ??.. Whys that?? ( we are always gentle, sir)

What do you think about that?

Your choices are pretty much the choices mentioned in several recent related threads. I suggest you do a search to avoid a rehash of one of them

A few


Canon 400D Lenses?

Good 'walkabout' lens for 400D

Walkabout Zoom equal to the quality of the 50mm f1.8

The only thing I would add is that the Kit lens is "almost free" and not "rubbish"
I used mine for up to 6 months getting to know the camera and save up before replacing it, However if your current budget stretches to your above lenses, be rest assured they have many happy owners

[Brammers]

Hoi there I've had experience with both, but don't own either.

Sigma 17-70:

• Decent midrange zoom
• Wierd macro - it focuses approx 2" in front of the glass - you won't be sneaking up on anything!
• Fast focus
• Good range - 17 is wide, 70 is fairly telephoto
• OK speed - f2.8 doesn't last long. f3.5 isn't all that fast...
• Decent sharpness, nothing amazingly special wide open.

Canon 50:

1. Prime lens - no zoom - one focal length only
2. Excellent image quality with creamy bokkeh
3. Stunning autofocus speed - even in the dark
4. 50mm (75mm equivalent) is not wide. If this is your only lens this could be a problem.

Primes are great. They're fast, give amazing image quality and force you to really think about your shots. They can be small and lightweight (exotic ones aren't). But to gain a complete set of focal lengths you'll need a whole bag full - I currently carry 4 around with me - 20, 35, 50, 135.

I shot a festival recently. One guy with a £2500 camera, one of the Canon pro models, had a 50 1.8 welded on throughout, despite a selection of Canon L zooms in his bag. On his second camera hung an 85mm prime. At the same event out of 8 shooters, 6 were shooting with primes - mostly 50s. They're simply the most cost effective way of getting the speed and quality required.

My reccomendation is to go with the 50 and see what you want to do from there. Others will reccomend the zoom and I have no problem with that - zooms nowdays can almost match the quality of primes and are much more convenient.

But that 50 is a lens you should have anyway and it's a fine way to start learning about photography - having 1 focal length only will force you to be really active with your composition. You'll use your body a lot more, zoom with your feet, lean in and out. And for those who say landscapes will be rules out until you buy something else, my best ever landscape shot was taken at 50mm.

[senu]

Just a little observation. I own the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 and use them fairly frequently ( As recently as this evening), though not the Sigma..
As one considering the much costlier Canon 17-55 f2.8 I didn't think it appropriate to advice on the Sigma , suffice to say it is VFM and well liked

I suggested the OP go thru a few recent past threads as Im quite concerned that some of these threads are getting to be clones : this is in no way trying to be unhelpful but to get the balance of variety of topics right

The 50mm 1.8 is a very affordable way to enjoy a fast prime but its AF hunts in low light ( something you can learn to live with) despite being a "fast" lens, it is the one lens which seems to trigger my AF auxiliary light most often
AS for its bokeh, it is good but I wouldn't say great..that belongs to the 1.4 .That said, the 1.8 is incredible VFM

The info from Brammers is otherwise very helpful and accurate and I hope the OP finds it so

[jonnypb]

I have both of them on my 400D and am happy with them. I use the 17-70 a lot more than the 50mm. It's suprising how quick you want to upgrade or buy new lenses. I'm already itching to buy a big zoom and an ultra wide lens

I would get the kit lens as it costs very little extra to buy. It cost me an extra £15 to buy as oppose to just getting the body and I sold it for around £45. A lot of people get good results with the kit lens so unless you're 100% what type of photography you want to do it migght be worth running with the kit lens for a few months before buying additional lenses.

DSLR can get very expensive and addictive but very enjoyable

[h4rri]

The 18-55 is not a great lens but it will allow you to get out there and decide which ranges you need to cover before buying more expensive glass. I would suggest for the £30 it generally costs as part of the kit it is worth the £'s just for the above reasons.

Grab the kit, use the lens for a month or two and use that time to decideon / save for better glass.

[senu]

50mm 1.8 from today FWIW ( No PP after conversion from RAW)

[jack_baps]

Cheers for the help guys!

Senu - I just realised you live right by my Gran! LOL. She lives in Hillingdon not far from the hospital.

[Clem_Dye]

Here's my 2p's worth. The new Canon EOS magazine (April - June 2007) has a review of a number of Canon lenses, including the 18-55 kit lens. Their conclusion was that although the kit lens isn't perfect, it's not that bad either. I've been quite impressed by some of the shots that I've been able to produce with the lens, although they're not in the league of some of the other posters here.

To compliment the 18-55 I've just grabbed a Tamron 55-200 from WarehouseExpress at £79 + filter cost. I've taken a few shots today and for the money, I'm actually quite impressed.

Having returned to SLR photography after a long absence I'm reminded just how expensive this hobby can get. The kit lens and new Tamron are obviously compromises but they'll certainly help me get familiar with the camera and back into the hobby. I have my eye on 24-105 Canon L series lens at some point in the future but I think that that I need to able to walk before I can run, photographically speaking.

HTH


Clem

[taposh]

Just my two pennies worth.

I'm going to second those recommending the kits lens. Its the only lens I have (had camera since Oct '06) and it's a really good lens to get to grips with the camera.

It's having used it for nearly 6 months now that I'm learning what its limitations are and what I really need to complement it with.

[Johndm]

All these taken with Mr Kit...................

It does need a good portion of light for good results though..

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0915523/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0893974/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1034150/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1171315/L/